Comments of the Week #58: The Coldest Cold Spot Of All [Starts With A Bang]

“The heart can get really cold if all you’ve known is winter.” -Benjamin Alire Sáenz

If you didn’t read everything this week on Starts With A Bang, it’s hard to blame you. Each week, on practically a daily basis, we’ve got new pieces coming at you, sharing the wonders of the Universe in our own unique fashion. The past seven days alone saw the following:

• Hubble vs. the Big Bang (for Ask Ethan),
• The horrible conditions of s’more factory farms (for our Weekend Diversion),
• NASA’s greatest observatories view the galactic center (for Mostly Mute Monday),
• What happens to light when it hits the Sun? (a wonderful Astroquizzical from Jillian Scudder),
• Bring deep space home (a review of Govert Schilling’s latest, great book),
• What does “scientific consensus” mean, and
• The physics of Happy Gilmore (for Throwback Thursday).

In addition to all that, I had a couple of new pieces appear over at Forbes:

• How We Know How Many Galaxies Are In The Universe, Thanks To Hubble, and
• Dark Matter Is Necessary For The Origin Of Life.

There were some excellent conversations that took place, but one comment was the most important and informative of all. So for the first time, we’ll have a one-comment-dominated edition (with the rest following the big one) of our Comments of the Week!

Image credit: Andrew Fruchter (STScI) et al., WFPC2, HST, NASA; digitally reprocessed by Al Kelly, via http://ift.tt/1IyYxYo.

From Seshadri Nadathur on the topic of the “cold spot” in the CMB: “I quite like your blog, and I appreciate the lengths you go to to ensure that the science you present is correct. This is why I am disappointed to see that you are in this instance giving credence to ridiculous hype.”

I’m going to separate this comment up into seven major chunks, so that we give each one of the major points the attention it deserves. To start, in the original article I wrote, I talked about three things that happen in the Universe that make what we see as the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and its fluctuations today different from what the initial fluctuations that were left over after inflation ended:

Image credit: NASA / WMAP science team, via http://ift.tt/1HzCvFu.

First, the density fluctuations grow-and-shrink as matter and radiation interact after the Hot Big Bang takes place. This leads to an initially scale-invariant spectrum of density fluctuations (solid lines, above) becoming a “wiggly” spectrum of CMB imperfections.

Image credit: Frank Bertoldi of University of Bonn, via http://ift.tt/1JgvIOy.

Second, there is material — both hot and fast-moving — in between the CMB and our eyes, for the CMB photons to interact with. When the photons pass through this material, their energy spectrum shifts, due to the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (SZ) effect. This will result in spots appearing to be the wrong temperature, particularly on quite small scales, unless we account for it.

Image credit: E. Siegel.

And third, when structure forms in the Universe, and CMB photons enter that gravitational well, oftentimes the well that they’re leaving is either deeper (for clusters) or shallower (for voids) than the well they entered, making the temperature warmer where there’s more structure and colder where there’s less. This is the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect.

This is all correct, and no one disputes this. The question is, can this picture — scale-invariant spectrum of fluctuations from inflation, matter-radiation interactions, the SZ effect and the ISW effect — account for everything we see?

Let’s go.

Image credit: ESA and the Planck Collaboration.

Let me summarise some facts regarding this supervoid “explanation” of the Cold Spot:

1. In November last year, a detailed study of the possible ISW effect due to exactly such a supervoid was published (by me and others) in Physical Review D, explicitly showing that this supervoid fails to account for more than 10% of the total temperature discrepancy at the centre of the Cold Spot unless all of GR is wrong. This reference is here: http://ift.tt/1IyYATT [Link fixed.]

I agree with what’s stated in the paper almost certainly. The void is just under 300 Megaparsecs (or nearly a billion light years) in size, which is huge! The authors (including Seshadri, who commented here) claim that this is a 10% less-dense region of space, although judging by galaxy counts, I find that it’s a 20% less-dense-than-average region of space. That’s a small detail, however. They (correctly) claim that a void of this size and density is nothing special; one that was the same size and 20% less dense than normal would also be expected in the Universe, albeit there should only (by my calculations) be about two-to-three of them in the local Universe, not twenty.

But they are correct with the possible exception of the numbers: they claim entire fluctuation is an extra “coldness” of about ~150 microKelvin, and the ISW for a supervoid of 10% lower density on that scale only contributed about ~20 microKelvin of that. (If it turns out to be 20% lower density, that’s a contribution more than ~20 microKelvin, but somewhat less than ~40 microKelvin, according to their paper.) Regardless, without the supervoid effect, this is approximately a five-sigma fluctuation: a rarity where we’d only expect one in the Universe at most, but not an impossibility.

Image credit: S. Nadathur et al., 2014, via http://ift.tt/1IyYz2w.

2. We also showed that in order to explain all of temperature discrepancy at the centre of the Cold Spot one would require a void that is so large and so empty that the chance of it existing in our Universe would be less than 1 in 1 million. The comparable probability of the Cold Spot just being a random fluctuation that requires no special explanation is roughly 1 in 1000, even according to the most pessimistic estimates (and likely much larger).

This part is important, because there was a paper by Istvan Szapudi and his collaborators that claimed that 100% of this effect could be caused not by the ISW, but by a second-order term known as the Rees-Sciama effect. After looking at the Nadathur et al. paper and Szapudi’s paper, I am well convinced that the second order effect is much, much smaller and negligible, and that the Szapudi analysis is incorrect. This means that the cold spot is actually there, and actually quite cold. It’s not catastrophically cold for the scale-invariant fluctuations, just unlikely. What’s ridiculously unlikely, however, is that a supervoid accounts for 100% of this cold spot.

The temperature contours for a given region size, a given density contrast and the number of regions expected per-local-Universe is given below, by Nadathur’s figure 5.

Image credit: S. Nadathur et al., 2014, via http://ift.tt/1IyYz2w.

3. The Cold Spot is not unusually cold at the centre. If one selects the coldest spot in the CMB map, naturally it is cold compared to the average point in the same map. This is just a selection effect. The question is whether it is cold compared to the coldest spot in CMB maps in alternative versions of the Universe. The answer is it is not: 100% of the coldness of the Cold Spot at the centre can be explained by the selection effect (Figure 6 in the paper above), compared to just 10% from the supervoid.

When they say “selection effect”, by the way, they mean — and here’s what I think they mean — the coldest spot in any Universe (mock Universe or real Universe) is always going to be much colder than average. Well, so what? Unless it’s so cold that it would be like a one-in-a-huge-huge-HUGE-number chance of such a spot existing, then that’s just the Universe we’re given. In our Universe, according to the Nadathur paper, that happens to be on a relatively large (~15 degree) scale, and happens to be a ~150 microKelvin fluctuation, possibly some (but not a lot) of which is due to this supervoid’s presence.

What they propose looking at as an “interesting” thing, however, is what the temperature from the nearby regions around it are doing, and how they differ from the “coldness” of the region we’re examining. That’s what figure 6, below, shows.

Image credit: S. Nadathur et al., 2014, via http://ift.tt/1IyYz2w.

4. What is unusual about the Cold Spot is that there is a hot ring surrounding the central cold region, which does not happen in random CMB maps. The supervoid in no way accounts for this, because supervoids do not produce hot rings, unless all of GR is wrong.

This is unusual, I agree, but not important. The ring is… well, it’s not really a ring. I mean, look for yourself at the Planck data: do you see a ring?

Image credit: ESA and the Planck Collaboration.

No; you see a region where it’s hotter around a region that’s very, very cold. Although this is unusual in the sense that it’s rare, I don’t think it’s significant in that I don’t believe it means anything other than, “yup, this is what the temperature patterns around this spot look like.”

5. This “supervoid” is not particularly super. It’s rare, but not so very rare: theory predicts roughly 20 or so such voids should exist in our local Universe, and simulations agree. Several such voids have already been seen in other parts of the sky, some of which are larger than this “supervoid” and all of which are emptier. Yet we do not see 20 Cold Spots! Can it be that GR fails only in one region of the sky? Or is it more likely that the supervoid and the Cold Spot are unrelated?

Basically, the point that Seshadri is hammering on is this: the authors of the study that claimed this cold spot was entirely due to the supervoid were in gross error; the supervoid is not really super in any sense, and only contributes at the 10-to-30% (at most) level. Most of the “coldness” of this cold spot is due to the actual density fluctuations in the CMB itself.

But I think the thing the commenter says next is the most damning and accurate thing about the entire episode, and this is really where I blame myself the most.

Image credit: István Szapudi et al., of how voids chill the CMB and clusters warm it, thanks to the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. Via http://ift.tt/1JgvJ4Z.

To be honest the most disappointing thing about this whole episode is that these results were published months in advance of the current press release, and the authors of this paper and the press release are well aware of them. I’m sorry to say that in my opinion the fact that they went ahead with demonstrably incorrect and over-hyped claims reflects very poorly on them. Publicity in news media who know nothing about physics is one thing, but it is much more worrying that such pseudo-scientific claims receive prominence on your own well-informed blog too.

The whole science-communication-by-press-release business is one of the things I’m most strident in my opposition to. They’re often sensationalized, and I often take the short-cut of my own professional assessment of the author(s) in figuring out how closely to scrutinize a claim. I almost went to grad school at the University of Hawaii, and — if I had, based on my interests — Istvan Szapudi likely would have been my Ph.D. supervisor. So I’ve always thought well of him professionally (in addition to his works that I knew about), and that bias that I had prevented me from digging in more deeply and finding the (rather large) flaws in the study.

So while I do think I don’t have anything to apologize for when it comes to the general explanation of the CMB fluctuation, the SZ and the ISW effects or any of that, I did not do as good a job as I ought to have when it came to the scrutiny of the results as respects the cold spot/supervoid issue. The cold spot really is very cold, and almost all of the coldness has nothing to do with the supervoid or the ISW (or the Rees-Sciama effect, for that matter) at all.

And finally, some (brief) other comments.

Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/ESA/CXC/STScI, via http://ift.tt/1bKFFcu.

From magnocrat on the multiwavelength Milky Way center: “It is mindboggling in the extreme but we must remember these are not true visual pictures. We could never , however close see things that way.”

Your eyes will never be this awesome, not unless you had panchromatic EM receptors hooked up to your eyes. But that’s kind of the point about coloration in astronomy and data visualization of all types: if you want to see what’s there, you need to present it in a way that maximizes both the information presented and the ease of processing it. When you look at this image, the data — from the X-rays (hot gas) to stars (points) to gas and dust (IR) — is easy to take in, simply through your eyes.

It’s not a “true visual” picture; it’s much better.

Image credit: Larry McNish of RASC Calgary Center, via http://ift.tt/1mThPMi.

From Sean T on photons traveling through the Universe: “Actually, what Denier says is true, but is only true because space is expanding. The photon’s wavelength increases because of this spatial expansion. In a static universe, light does not lose energy as it propagates through the vacuum.”

And this is important when we consider light traveling to us from locations — like globular clusters, stars within the Milky Way or, honestly, anything in our local group — that aren’t caught up in the expansion of the Universe. Since the space between ourselves and these locations isn’t expanding, there’s no stretching of the wavelength of photons, and hence, no loss of energy. The only redshift/blueshift effects are from doppler (motion) shifts and changes in the gravitational properties of space from the emitter to the observer.

Image credit: MacLeod / Union of Concerned Scientists.

From David Helson on “scientific consensus” and expertise: “What sort of degree do you need to understand what it means when ‘scientists’ are caught rigging the peer review process? What does it suggest when a ‘scientist’ refuses to share his data and refuses to obey legal FOI requests? What sort of degree does it take to recognize that the mathematical weather models have all been wrong for several decades? Is it really uneducated to recognize which side of the grant process is unfairly weighted? Does human nature count for nothing? How much power is in it for the UN, and how much profit? What kind of scientist isn’t disturbed by a rigged peer review process and what kind of scientist leaves that out of his discussion?”

This is what we call “a slew of conspiracy theories.” If you have a problem with the science, then go and learn the science and expose it. The problem with your idea of what’s going on is that everyone who’s gone and done it — even extreme skeptics like Richard Mueller — wind up reaching the same conclusion, independently, as the scientific consensus you decry.

If you’re not going to do that work yourself, you’re just some guy on the internet with an inadequately informed opinion. Honestly, that’s most of who weighs in on climate change on the internet.

Do better.

Image credit: Sports Science by FOX, of Padraig Harrington.

And finally, from John H on the physics of Happy Gilmore: “This is definitely fun to try, but Padraig who, in addition to his incredible golf skills, also trained as a dancer when younger, makes it look a lot easier than it is. Even long drive competitors don’t use the technique, because it’s near impossible to master consistently and they still have to keep the ball in a target grid used to determine legal attempts. For regular play it just doesn’t add anything useful. Closer is always better than further.”

Here’s the thing: I imagine it’s all about practice. Golfers practice their swing… what, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of times, before they’re ready to compete professionally at the highest levels? What if, instead of stationary drives (iron and putter play is different), golfers simply learned how to hit tee shots with a running start? Could that just up the risk/reward game? I’d like to see. Hell, if I didn’t find golf so dull, maybe — since I have practically no experience being a golf-ball-whacker-guy — I’d do the experiment myself! Maybe someday… maybe someday.

Thanks for a great week of comments, and see you back here soon for more about the Universe!

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1JgvJ55

“The heart can get really cold if all you’ve known is winter.” -Benjamin Alire Sáenz

If you didn’t read everything this week on Starts With A Bang, it’s hard to blame you. Each week, on practically a daily basis, we’ve got new pieces coming at you, sharing the wonders of the Universe in our own unique fashion. The past seven days alone saw the following:

• Hubble vs. the Big Bang (for Ask Ethan),
• The horrible conditions of s’more factory farms (for our Weekend Diversion),
• NASA’s greatest observatories view the galactic center (for Mostly Mute Monday),
• What happens to light when it hits the Sun? (a wonderful Astroquizzical from Jillian Scudder),
• Bring deep space home (a review of Govert Schilling’s latest, great book),
• What does “scientific consensus” mean, and
• The physics of Happy Gilmore (for Throwback Thursday).

In addition to all that, I had a couple of new pieces appear over at Forbes:

• How We Know How Many Galaxies Are In The Universe, Thanks To Hubble, and
• Dark Matter Is Necessary For The Origin Of Life.

There were some excellent conversations that took place, but one comment was the most important and informative of all. So for the first time, we’ll have a one-comment-dominated edition (with the rest following the big one) of our Comments of the Week!

Image credit: Andrew Fruchter (STScI) et al., WFPC2, HST, NASA; digitally reprocessed by Al Kelly, via http://ift.tt/1IyYxYo.

From Seshadri Nadathur on the topic of the “cold spot” in the CMB: “I quite like your blog, and I appreciate the lengths you go to to ensure that the science you present is correct. This is why I am disappointed to see that you are in this instance giving credence to ridiculous hype.”

I’m going to separate this comment up into seven major chunks, so that we give each one of the major points the attention it deserves. To start, in the original article I wrote, I talked about three things that happen in the Universe that make what we see as the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and its fluctuations today different from what the initial fluctuations that were left over after inflation ended:

Image credit: NASA / WMAP science team, via http://ift.tt/1HzCvFu.

First, the density fluctuations grow-and-shrink as matter and radiation interact after the Hot Big Bang takes place. This leads to an initially scale-invariant spectrum of density fluctuations (solid lines, above) becoming a “wiggly” spectrum of CMB imperfections.

Image credit: Frank Bertoldi of University of Bonn, via http://ift.tt/1JgvIOy.

Second, there is material — both hot and fast-moving — in between the CMB and our eyes, for the CMB photons to interact with. When the photons pass through this material, their energy spectrum shifts, due to the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (SZ) effect. This will result in spots appearing to be the wrong temperature, particularly on quite small scales, unless we account for it.

Image credit: E. Siegel.

And third, when structure forms in the Universe, and CMB photons enter that gravitational well, oftentimes the well that they’re leaving is either deeper (for clusters) or shallower (for voids) than the well they entered, making the temperature warmer where there’s more structure and colder where there’s less. This is the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect.

This is all correct, and no one disputes this. The question is, can this picture — scale-invariant spectrum of fluctuations from inflation, matter-radiation interactions, the SZ effect and the ISW effect — account for everything we see?

Let’s go.

Image credit: ESA and the Planck Collaboration.

Let me summarise some facts regarding this supervoid “explanation” of the Cold Spot:

1. In November last year, a detailed study of the possible ISW effect due to exactly such a supervoid was published (by me and others) in Physical Review D, explicitly showing that this supervoid fails to account for more than 10% of the total temperature discrepancy at the centre of the Cold Spot unless all of GR is wrong. This reference is here: http://ift.tt/1IyYATT [Link fixed.]

I agree with what’s stated in the paper almost certainly. The void is just under 300 Megaparsecs (or nearly a billion light years) in size, which is huge! The authors (including Seshadri, who commented here) claim that this is a 10% less-dense region of space, although judging by galaxy counts, I find that it’s a 20% less-dense-than-average region of space. That’s a small detail, however. They (correctly) claim that a void of this size and density is nothing special; one that was the same size and 20% less dense than normal would also be expected in the Universe, albeit there should only (by my calculations) be about two-to-three of them in the local Universe, not twenty.

But they are correct with the possible exception of the numbers: they claim entire fluctuation is an extra “coldness” of about ~150 microKelvin, and the ISW for a supervoid of 10% lower density on that scale only contributed about ~20 microKelvin of that. (If it turns out to be 20% lower density, that’s a contribution more than ~20 microKelvin, but somewhat less than ~40 microKelvin, according to their paper.) Regardless, without the supervoid effect, this is approximately a five-sigma fluctuation: a rarity where we’d only expect one in the Universe at most, but not an impossibility.

Image credit: S. Nadathur et al., 2014, via http://ift.tt/1IyYz2w.

2. We also showed that in order to explain all of temperature discrepancy at the centre of the Cold Spot one would require a void that is so large and so empty that the chance of it existing in our Universe would be less than 1 in 1 million. The comparable probability of the Cold Spot just being a random fluctuation that requires no special explanation is roughly 1 in 1000, even according to the most pessimistic estimates (and likely much larger).

This part is important, because there was a paper by Istvan Szapudi and his collaborators that claimed that 100% of this effect could be caused not by the ISW, but by a second-order term known as the Rees-Sciama effect. After looking at the Nadathur et al. paper and Szapudi’s paper, I am well convinced that the second order effect is much, much smaller and negligible, and that the Szapudi analysis is incorrect. This means that the cold spot is actually there, and actually quite cold. It’s not catastrophically cold for the scale-invariant fluctuations, just unlikely. What’s ridiculously unlikely, however, is that a supervoid accounts for 100% of this cold spot.

The temperature contours for a given region size, a given density contrast and the number of regions expected per-local-Universe is given below, by Nadathur’s figure 5.

Image credit: S. Nadathur et al., 2014, via http://ift.tt/1IyYz2w.

3. The Cold Spot is not unusually cold at the centre. If one selects the coldest spot in the CMB map, naturally it is cold compared to the average point in the same map. This is just a selection effect. The question is whether it is cold compared to the coldest spot in CMB maps in alternative versions of the Universe. The answer is it is not: 100% of the coldness of the Cold Spot at the centre can be explained by the selection effect (Figure 6 in the paper above), compared to just 10% from the supervoid.

When they say “selection effect”, by the way, they mean — and here’s what I think they mean — the coldest spot in any Universe (mock Universe or real Universe) is always going to be much colder than average. Well, so what? Unless it’s so cold that it would be like a one-in-a-huge-huge-HUGE-number chance of such a spot existing, then that’s just the Universe we’re given. In our Universe, according to the Nadathur paper, that happens to be on a relatively large (~15 degree) scale, and happens to be a ~150 microKelvin fluctuation, possibly some (but not a lot) of which is due to this supervoid’s presence.

What they propose looking at as an “interesting” thing, however, is what the temperature from the nearby regions around it are doing, and how they differ from the “coldness” of the region we’re examining. That’s what figure 6, below, shows.

Image credit: S. Nadathur et al., 2014, via http://ift.tt/1IyYz2w.

4. What is unusual about the Cold Spot is that there is a hot ring surrounding the central cold region, which does not happen in random CMB maps. The supervoid in no way accounts for this, because supervoids do not produce hot rings, unless all of GR is wrong.

This is unusual, I agree, but not important. The ring is… well, it’s not really a ring. I mean, look for yourself at the Planck data: do you see a ring?

Image credit: ESA and the Planck Collaboration.

No; you see a region where it’s hotter around a region that’s very, very cold. Although this is unusual in the sense that it’s rare, I don’t think it’s significant in that I don’t believe it means anything other than, “yup, this is what the temperature patterns around this spot look like.”

5. This “supervoid” is not particularly super. It’s rare, but not so very rare: theory predicts roughly 20 or so such voids should exist in our local Universe, and simulations agree. Several such voids have already been seen in other parts of the sky, some of which are larger than this “supervoid” and all of which are emptier. Yet we do not see 20 Cold Spots! Can it be that GR fails only in one region of the sky? Or is it more likely that the supervoid and the Cold Spot are unrelated?

Basically, the point that Seshadri is hammering on is this: the authors of the study that claimed this cold spot was entirely due to the supervoid were in gross error; the supervoid is not really super in any sense, and only contributes at the 10-to-30% (at most) level. Most of the “coldness” of this cold spot is due to the actual density fluctuations in the CMB itself.

But I think the thing the commenter says next is the most damning and accurate thing about the entire episode, and this is really where I blame myself the most.

Image credit: István Szapudi et al., of how voids chill the CMB and clusters warm it, thanks to the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. Via http://ift.tt/1JgvJ4Z.

To be honest the most disappointing thing about this whole episode is that these results were published months in advance of the current press release, and the authors of this paper and the press release are well aware of them. I’m sorry to say that in my opinion the fact that they went ahead with demonstrably incorrect and over-hyped claims reflects very poorly on them. Publicity in news media who know nothing about physics is one thing, but it is much more worrying that such pseudo-scientific claims receive prominence on your own well-informed blog too.

The whole science-communication-by-press-release business is one of the things I’m most strident in my opposition to. They’re often sensationalized, and I often take the short-cut of my own professional assessment of the author(s) in figuring out how closely to scrutinize a claim. I almost went to grad school at the University of Hawaii, and — if I had, based on my interests — Istvan Szapudi likely would have been my Ph.D. supervisor. So I’ve always thought well of him professionally (in addition to his works that I knew about), and that bias that I had prevented me from digging in more deeply and finding the (rather large) flaws in the study.

So while I do think I don’t have anything to apologize for when it comes to the general explanation of the CMB fluctuation, the SZ and the ISW effects or any of that, I did not do as good a job as I ought to have when it came to the scrutiny of the results as respects the cold spot/supervoid issue. The cold spot really is very cold, and almost all of the coldness has nothing to do with the supervoid or the ISW (or the Rees-Sciama effect, for that matter) at all.

And finally, some (brief) other comments.

Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/ESA/CXC/STScI, via http://ift.tt/1bKFFcu.

From magnocrat on the multiwavelength Milky Way center: “It is mindboggling in the extreme but we must remember these are not true visual pictures. We could never , however close see things that way.”

Your eyes will never be this awesome, not unless you had panchromatic EM receptors hooked up to your eyes. But that’s kind of the point about coloration in astronomy and data visualization of all types: if you want to see what’s there, you need to present it in a way that maximizes both the information presented and the ease of processing it. When you look at this image, the data — from the X-rays (hot gas) to stars (points) to gas and dust (IR) — is easy to take in, simply through your eyes.

It’s not a “true visual” picture; it’s much better.

Image credit: Larry McNish of RASC Calgary Center, via http://ift.tt/1mThPMi.

From Sean T on photons traveling through the Universe: “Actually, what Denier says is true, but is only true because space is expanding. The photon’s wavelength increases because of this spatial expansion. In a static universe, light does not lose energy as it propagates through the vacuum.”

And this is important when we consider light traveling to us from locations — like globular clusters, stars within the Milky Way or, honestly, anything in our local group — that aren’t caught up in the expansion of the Universe. Since the space between ourselves and these locations isn’t expanding, there’s no stretching of the wavelength of photons, and hence, no loss of energy. The only redshift/blueshift effects are from doppler (motion) shifts and changes in the gravitational properties of space from the emitter to the observer.

Image credit: MacLeod / Union of Concerned Scientists.

From David Helson on “scientific consensus” and expertise: “What sort of degree do you need to understand what it means when ‘scientists’ are caught rigging the peer review process? What does it suggest when a ‘scientist’ refuses to share his data and refuses to obey legal FOI requests? What sort of degree does it take to recognize that the mathematical weather models have all been wrong for several decades? Is it really uneducated to recognize which side of the grant process is unfairly weighted? Does human nature count for nothing? How much power is in it for the UN, and how much profit? What kind of scientist isn’t disturbed by a rigged peer review process and what kind of scientist leaves that out of his discussion?”

This is what we call “a slew of conspiracy theories.” If you have a problem with the science, then go and learn the science and expose it. The problem with your idea of what’s going on is that everyone who’s gone and done it — even extreme skeptics like Richard Mueller — wind up reaching the same conclusion, independently, as the scientific consensus you decry.

If you’re not going to do that work yourself, you’re just some guy on the internet with an inadequately informed opinion. Honestly, that’s most of who weighs in on climate change on the internet.

Do better.

Image credit: Sports Science by FOX, of Padraig Harrington.

And finally, from John H on the physics of Happy Gilmore: “This is definitely fun to try, but Padraig who, in addition to his incredible golf skills, also trained as a dancer when younger, makes it look a lot easier than it is. Even long drive competitors don’t use the technique, because it’s near impossible to master consistently and they still have to keep the ball in a target grid used to determine legal attempts. For regular play it just doesn’t add anything useful. Closer is always better than further.”

Here’s the thing: I imagine it’s all about practice. Golfers practice their swing… what, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of times, before they’re ready to compete professionally at the highest levels? What if, instead of stationary drives (iron and putter play is different), golfers simply learned how to hit tee shots with a running start? Could that just up the risk/reward game? I’d like to see. Hell, if I didn’t find golf so dull, maybe — since I have practically no experience being a golf-ball-whacker-guy — I’d do the experiment myself! Maybe someday… maybe someday.

Thanks for a great week of comments, and see you back here soon for more about the Universe!

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1JgvJ55

Giant Ants and Illegal Acts [Uncertain Principles]

A month or so back, when I went to Vanderbilt to give a talk, I met Robert Scherrer, the department chair down there, who mentioned he was starting a blog soon. That blog is Cosmic Yarns, and has now been live for a while, but I’ve been too busy to do a proper link. He’s using it to look at the science of science fiction, and has a bunch of nice posts up, including a good explanation of why you don’t need to worry about giant ants:

Has this ever happened to you? While you are enjoying a relaxing picnic in the New Mexican desert, your lunch is overrun by ants: not ordinary ants, but 12-foot-tall behemoths, dripping saliva from their jaws and chittering wildly. You pull your Browning automatic rifle out from underneath the picnic blanket and empty an entire magazine into the nearest ant, but it doesn’t even flinch. Instead, it crushes you between its pincers. Then the ants eat all of your potato salad.

This scenario played out countless times in 1950s science fiction films. The populace ran screaming from giant ants, enormous reptiles of various kinds, and even a 50-foot woman. One of the first of these films was Them, in 1954, in which radiation from the New Mexican atomic bomb tests causes ants to mutate to an enormous size. Them contains many of the iconic elements of the “giant creature” films (radiation-induced mutations, skeptical authorities, elderly scientist-father with beautiful scientist-daughter), and it holds up surprisingly well. Who can resist a film in which James Arness and James Whitmore share the screen with Fess Parker and the young Leonard Nimoy? Parker got his big break in this movie — Walt Disney saw it himself and decided to cast Parker as Davy Crockett. And Nimoy appears with a thick New York accent! If you haven’t seen Them, you should definitely rent it. Or better yet, buy it, so you can watch it over and over and over….

You might suspect something is wrong with the idea of giant creatures just by looking at the shapes of animals of various sizes. Insects have spindly legs, little more than toothpicks, to support their weight. Dogs and cats have much larger limbs in proportion to their size, while humans’ are even bigger. By the time you get to elephants, you find legs that look like tree trunks. So there is clearly something odd going on there.

I also got a kick out of a tv trvia question about the time Albert Michelson was on Bonanza:

Michelson grew up in Nevada, where Bonanza was set. In the show, Ben Cartwright (Lorne Greene) gets the young Michelson an appointment to the Naval Academy, thus setting in motion the train of events that would lead to Einstein’s theory of relativity. Who would have guessed?

Amusingly, this is not a whole lot less likely than what actually happened– Michelson was born in present-day Poland, and his family emigrated to the US when he was a baby. When he finished high school, he sought an appointment to the Naval Academy, but wasn’t able to get one from his local Congressional delegation, so he traveled to Washington, DC to personally appeal to President Grant. Who, as it turned out, had already given out all of his allotted appointments to the Naval Academy.

The young Michelson sufficiently impressed Grant and his staff, though, that Grant decided to give him a spot in the Academy anyway, an “illegal act” that Michelson would chuckle over years down the road. So Michelson got to go to Annapolis after all, launching a brilliant scientific career that eventually earned him a Nobel Prize.

(Story via Dr. SkySkull…)

So, you know, what Twain said about truth and fiction…

Anyway, go check out Scherrer’s new blog. And that pretty much exhausts what I’m capable of writing in my current pseudoephedrine fog.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1QXA7LO

A month or so back, when I went to Vanderbilt to give a talk, I met Robert Scherrer, the department chair down there, who mentioned he was starting a blog soon. That blog is Cosmic Yarns, and has now been live for a while, but I’ve been too busy to do a proper link. He’s using it to look at the science of science fiction, and has a bunch of nice posts up, including a good explanation of why you don’t need to worry about giant ants:

Has this ever happened to you? While you are enjoying a relaxing picnic in the New Mexican desert, your lunch is overrun by ants: not ordinary ants, but 12-foot-tall behemoths, dripping saliva from their jaws and chittering wildly. You pull your Browning automatic rifle out from underneath the picnic blanket and empty an entire magazine into the nearest ant, but it doesn’t even flinch. Instead, it crushes you between its pincers. Then the ants eat all of your potato salad.

This scenario played out countless times in 1950s science fiction films. The populace ran screaming from giant ants, enormous reptiles of various kinds, and even a 50-foot woman. One of the first of these films was Them, in 1954, in which radiation from the New Mexican atomic bomb tests causes ants to mutate to an enormous size. Them contains many of the iconic elements of the “giant creature” films (radiation-induced mutations, skeptical authorities, elderly scientist-father with beautiful scientist-daughter), and it holds up surprisingly well. Who can resist a film in which James Arness and James Whitmore share the screen with Fess Parker and the young Leonard Nimoy? Parker got his big break in this movie — Walt Disney saw it himself and decided to cast Parker as Davy Crockett. And Nimoy appears with a thick New York accent! If you haven’t seen Them, you should definitely rent it. Or better yet, buy it, so you can watch it over and over and over….

You might suspect something is wrong with the idea of giant creatures just by looking at the shapes of animals of various sizes. Insects have spindly legs, little more than toothpicks, to support their weight. Dogs and cats have much larger limbs in proportion to their size, while humans’ are even bigger. By the time you get to elephants, you find legs that look like tree trunks. So there is clearly something odd going on there.

I also got a kick out of a tv trvia question about the time Albert Michelson was on Bonanza:

Michelson grew up in Nevada, where Bonanza was set. In the show, Ben Cartwright (Lorne Greene) gets the young Michelson an appointment to the Naval Academy, thus setting in motion the train of events that would lead to Einstein’s theory of relativity. Who would have guessed?

Amusingly, this is not a whole lot less likely than what actually happened– Michelson was born in present-day Poland, and his family emigrated to the US when he was a baby. When he finished high school, he sought an appointment to the Naval Academy, but wasn’t able to get one from his local Congressional delegation, so he traveled to Washington, DC to personally appeal to President Grant. Who, as it turned out, had already given out all of his allotted appointments to the Naval Academy.

The young Michelson sufficiently impressed Grant and his staff, though, that Grant decided to give him a spot in the Academy anyway, an “illegal act” that Michelson would chuckle over years down the road. So Michelson got to go to Annapolis after all, launching a brilliant scientific career that eventually earned him a Nobel Prize.

(Story via Dr. SkySkull…)

So, you know, what Twain said about truth and fiction…

Anyway, go check out Scherrer’s new blog. And that pretty much exhausts what I’m capable of writing in my current pseudoephedrine fog.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1QXA7LO

Saturday Space Sight: “Mini Supernova” Explosion Could Have Big Impact

In Hollywood blockbusters, explosions are often among the stars of the show. In space, explosions of actual stars are a focus for scientists who hope to better understand their births, lives, and deaths and how they interact with their surroundings.

Using NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory, astronomers have studied one particular explosion that may provide clues to the dynamics of other, much larger stellar eruptions.

GK Persei is a “classical nova,” an outburst produced by a thermonuclear explosion on the surface of a white dwarf star. (Photo: NASA/Chandra X-ray Observatory Center/RIKEN/D.Takei et al)

A team of researchers pointed the telescope at GK Persei, an object that became a sensation in the astronomical world in 1901 when it suddenly appeared as one of the brightest stars in the sky for a few days, before gradually fading away in brightness. Today, astronomers cite GK Persei as an example of a “classical nova,” an outburst produced by a thermonuclear explosion on the surface of a white dwarf star, the dense remnant of a Sun-like star.

A nova can occur if the strong gravity of a white dwarf pulls material from its orbiting companion star. If enough material, mostly in the form of hydrogen gas, accumulates on the surface of the white dwarf, nuclear fusion reactions can occur and intensify, culminating into a cosmic-sized hydrogen bomb blast. The outer layers of the white dwarf are blown away, producing a nova outburst that can be observed for a period of months to years as the material expands into space.

Classical novas can be considered to be “miniature” versions of supernova explosions. Supernovas signal the destruction of an entire star and can be so bright that they outshine the whole galaxy where they are found. Supernovas are extremely important for cosmic ecology because they inject huge amounts of energy into the interstellar gas, and are responsible for dispersing elements such as iron, calcium and oxygen into space where they may be incorporated into future generations of stars and planets.

Although the remnants of supernovas are much more massive and energetic than classical novas, some of the fundamental physics is the same. Both involve an explosion and creation of a shock wave that travels at supersonic speeds through the surrounding gas. The more modest energies and masses associated with classical novas means that the remnants evolve more quickly. This, plus the much higher frequency of their occurrence compared to supenovas, makes classical novas important targets for studying cosmic explosions.

Chandra first observed GK Persei in February 2000 and then again in November 2013. This 13-year baseline provides astronomers with enough time to notice important differences in the X-ray emission and its properties.

This new image of GK Persei contains X-rays from Chandra (blue), optical data from NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope (yellow), and radio data from the National Science Foundation’s Very Large Array (pink). The X-ray data show hot gas and the radio data show emission from electrons that have been accelerated to high energies by the nova shock wave. The optical data reveal clumps of material that were ejected in the explosion. The nature of the point-like source on the lower left is unknown.

Over the years that the Chandra data span, the nova debris expanded at a speed of about 700,000 miles per hour. This translates to the blast wave moving about 90 billion miles during that period.

One intriguing discovery illustrates how the study of nova remnants can provide important clues about the environment of the explosion. The X-ray luminosity of the GK Persei remnant decreased by about 40% over the 13 years between the Chandra observations, whereas the temperature of the gas in the remnant has essentially remained constant, at about one million degrees Celsius. As the shock wave expanded and heated an increasing amount of matter, the temperature behind the wave of energy should have decreased. The observed fading and constant temperature suggests that the wave of energy has swept up a negligible amount of gas in the environment around the star over the past 13 years. This suggests that the wave must currently be expanding into a region of much lower density than before, giving clues to stellar neighborhood in which GK Persei resides.

A paper describing these results appeared in the March 10th issue of The Astrophysical Journal. The authors were Dai Takei (RIKEN, Spring-8 Center Japan), Jeremy Drake (Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory), Hiroya Yamaguichi (Goddard Space Flight Center), Patrick Slane (Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory), Yasunobu Uchimaya (Rikkyo University, Japan), Satoru Katsuda (Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency).

NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, manages the Chandra program for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington. The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts, controls Chandra’s science and flight operations.

Story and information provided by NASA; Photo: NASA/Chandra X-ray Observatory Center/RIKEN/D.Takei et al
Follow Armed with Science on Facebook and Twitter!
———-

Disclaimer: The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the Department of Defense. For other than authorized activities, such as, military exchanges and Morale, Welfare and Recreation sites, the Department of Defense does not exercise any editorial control over the information you may find at these locations. Such links are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this DoD website.

from Armed with Science http://ift.tt/1PdNxiS

In Hollywood blockbusters, explosions are often among the stars of the show. In space, explosions of actual stars are a focus for scientists who hope to better understand their births, lives, and deaths and how they interact with their surroundings.

Using NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory, astronomers have studied one particular explosion that may provide clues to the dynamics of other, much larger stellar eruptions.

GK Persei is a “classical nova,” an outburst produced by a thermonuclear explosion on the surface of a white dwarf star. (Photo: NASA/Chandra X-ray Observatory Center/RIKEN/D.Takei et al)

A team of researchers pointed the telescope at GK Persei, an object that became a sensation in the astronomical world in 1901 when it suddenly appeared as one of the brightest stars in the sky for a few days, before gradually fading away in brightness. Today, astronomers cite GK Persei as an example of a “classical nova,” an outburst produced by a thermonuclear explosion on the surface of a white dwarf star, the dense remnant of a Sun-like star.

A nova can occur if the strong gravity of a white dwarf pulls material from its orbiting companion star. If enough material, mostly in the form of hydrogen gas, accumulates on the surface of the white dwarf, nuclear fusion reactions can occur and intensify, culminating into a cosmic-sized hydrogen bomb blast. The outer layers of the white dwarf are blown away, producing a nova outburst that can be observed for a period of months to years as the material expands into space.

Classical novas can be considered to be “miniature” versions of supernova explosions. Supernovas signal the destruction of an entire star and can be so bright that they outshine the whole galaxy where they are found. Supernovas are extremely important for cosmic ecology because they inject huge amounts of energy into the interstellar gas, and are responsible for dispersing elements such as iron, calcium and oxygen into space where they may be incorporated into future generations of stars and planets.

Although the remnants of supernovas are much more massive and energetic than classical novas, some of the fundamental physics is the same. Both involve an explosion and creation of a shock wave that travels at supersonic speeds through the surrounding gas. The more modest energies and masses associated with classical novas means that the remnants evolve more quickly. This, plus the much higher frequency of their occurrence compared to supenovas, makes classical novas important targets for studying cosmic explosions.

Chandra first observed GK Persei in February 2000 and then again in November 2013. This 13-year baseline provides astronomers with enough time to notice important differences in the X-ray emission and its properties.

This new image of GK Persei contains X-rays from Chandra (blue), optical data from NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope (yellow), and radio data from the National Science Foundation’s Very Large Array (pink). The X-ray data show hot gas and the radio data show emission from electrons that have been accelerated to high energies by the nova shock wave. The optical data reveal clumps of material that were ejected in the explosion. The nature of the point-like source on the lower left is unknown.

Over the years that the Chandra data span, the nova debris expanded at a speed of about 700,000 miles per hour. This translates to the blast wave moving about 90 billion miles during that period.

One intriguing discovery illustrates how the study of nova remnants can provide important clues about the environment of the explosion. The X-ray luminosity of the GK Persei remnant decreased by about 40% over the 13 years between the Chandra observations, whereas the temperature of the gas in the remnant has essentially remained constant, at about one million degrees Celsius. As the shock wave expanded and heated an increasing amount of matter, the temperature behind the wave of energy should have decreased. The observed fading and constant temperature suggests that the wave of energy has swept up a negligible amount of gas in the environment around the star over the past 13 years. This suggests that the wave must currently be expanding into a region of much lower density than before, giving clues to stellar neighborhood in which GK Persei resides.

A paper describing these results appeared in the March 10th issue of The Astrophysical Journal. The authors were Dai Takei (RIKEN, Spring-8 Center Japan), Jeremy Drake (Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory), Hiroya Yamaguichi (Goddard Space Flight Center), Patrick Slane (Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory), Yasunobu Uchimaya (Rikkyo University, Japan), Satoru Katsuda (Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency).

NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, manages the Chandra program for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington. The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts, controls Chandra’s science and flight operations.

Story and information provided by NASA; Photo: NASA/Chandra X-ray Observatory Center/RIKEN/D.Takei et al
Follow Armed with Science on Facebook and Twitter!
———-

Disclaimer: The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the Department of Defense. For other than authorized activities, such as, military exchanges and Morale, Welfare and Recreation sites, the Department of Defense does not exercise any editorial control over the information you may find at these locations. Such links are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this DoD website.

from Armed with Science http://ift.tt/1PdNxiS

News digest – exercise and bowel cancer, ‘DNA-detecting toothbrush’, the ‘test’ that isn’t a test and more

• Research shows that moderate physical activity has benefits for patients with bowel cancer. But according to our new research, more than two-thirds of patients said they couldn’t remember being given advice to keep active after their diagnosis. Our press release has the details, and Dr Abi Fisher, one of the scientists behind the study, blogged about its implications.
• Several outlets covered early stage clinical trial results, presented at a European conference, suggesting that radioactive implants placed inside prostate tumours may improve survival over traditional radiotherapy treatment – something that will need confirming in larger studies. The Guardian and the Telegraph covered the news.
• A “Toothbrush that checks your DNA for onset of cancer”? This doesn’t exist (yet) and the technology is still in an experimental stage.
• Wired magazine featured a video from the University of Cambridge, exploring how researchers work with animals to help develop new cancer treatments.
• The benefits of a high-fibre diet in reducing bowel cancer risk could be due to its effects on gut bacteria, according to a preliminary international study. This study attracted a lot of media coverage, and some of it was a bit misleading. Here’s our more balanced take, and NHS Choices took an in-depth look too.

Number of the week:

25

Five year survival for children’s cancer has increased 25 per cent in the last two decades, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics.

• New figures showed that skin cancer cases in Scotland have increased by almost a third in the past decade. The BBC has more.
• The Mail Online covered intriguing new research into the phenomenon of ‘Chemo brain’.
• Well this is new. An adult movie, based on Game of Thrones, that apparently “seeks to raise awareness about testicular cancer”. (Here’s our advice on checking for cancer, which contains fewer dragons but is a little less risque).
• “Prostate cancer could be ‘wiped out’ by new treatment”, said the Telegraph and others. “In mice!” replied NHS Choices.
• The Wall Street Journal published an excellent summary of the bigger picture in cancer research.
• We already know that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) can affect the risk of certain cancers, and the Mail Online reported that some types of HRT could still increase the risk of breast cancer eight years after stopping them. Actually this study showed that breast cancer risk was increased for about six years after a woman stopped taking HRT, which is similar to what other research has shown. You can read more about HRT and cancer risk on our website.
• Reports about “going out in the sun” being protective against pancreatic cancer were misleading. The findings come from something called an ‘ecological study’ that can’t really prove what prevents, or causes, cancer. We’ve written about these before (in relation to oxygen and lung cancer) so give this blog post a read as all the same points apply.

And finally

• In another iteration of the ‘simple test’ meme, the Telegraph and Independent both splashed on some early exploratory research on how the DNA in our cells changes as we get older. This was translated by some enthusiastic headline writers into “New test can predict cancer up to 13 years before disease develops”. We’ll let the following quote, from the research paper behind the headlines do the talking for this one:

“Our low sample size increases the possibility of our findings being due to random chance and/or our measures of association being artificially high”

Nick

from Cancer Research UK - Science blog http://ift.tt/1DJyDdI

• Research shows that moderate physical activity has benefits for patients with bowel cancer. But according to our new research, more than two-thirds of patients said they couldn’t remember being given advice to keep active after their diagnosis. Our press release has the details, and Dr Abi Fisher, one of the scientists behind the study, blogged about its implications.
• Several outlets covered early stage clinical trial results, presented at a European conference, suggesting that radioactive implants placed inside prostate tumours may improve survival over traditional radiotherapy treatment – something that will need confirming in larger studies. The Guardian and the Telegraph covered the news.
• A “Toothbrush that checks your DNA for onset of cancer”? This doesn’t exist (yet) and the technology is still in an experimental stage.
• Wired magazine featured a video from the University of Cambridge, exploring how researchers work with animals to help develop new cancer treatments.
• The benefits of a high-fibre diet in reducing bowel cancer risk could be due to its effects on gut bacteria, according to a preliminary international study. This study attracted a lot of media coverage, and some of it was a bit misleading. Here’s our more balanced take, and NHS Choices took an in-depth look too.

Number of the week:

25

Five year survival for children’s cancer has increased 25 per cent in the last two decades, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics.

• New figures showed that skin cancer cases in Scotland have increased by almost a third in the past decade. The BBC has more.
• The Mail Online covered intriguing new research into the phenomenon of ‘Chemo brain’.
• Well this is new. An adult movie, based on Game of Thrones, that apparently “seeks to raise awareness about testicular cancer”. (Here’s our advice on checking for cancer, which contains fewer dragons but is a little less risque).
• “Prostate cancer could be ‘wiped out’ by new treatment”, said the Telegraph and others. “In mice!” replied NHS Choices.
• The Wall Street Journal published an excellent summary of the bigger picture in cancer research.
• We already know that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) can affect the risk of certain cancers, and the Mail Online reported that some types of HRT could still increase the risk of breast cancer eight years after stopping them. Actually this study showed that breast cancer risk was increased for about six years after a woman stopped taking HRT, which is similar to what other research has shown. You can read more about HRT and cancer risk on our website.
• Reports about “going out in the sun” being protective against pancreatic cancer were misleading. The findings come from something called an ‘ecological study’ that can’t really prove what prevents, or causes, cancer. We’ve written about these before (in relation to oxygen and lung cancer) so give this blog post a read as all the same points apply.

And finally

• In another iteration of the ‘simple test’ meme, the Telegraph and Independent both splashed on some early exploratory research on how the DNA in our cells changes as we get older. This was translated by some enthusiastic headline writers into “New test can predict cancer up to 13 years before disease develops”. We’ll let the following quote, from the research paper behind the headlines do the talking for this one:

“Our low sample size increases the possibility of our findings being due to random chance and/or our measures of association being artificially high”

Nick

from Cancer Research UK - Science blog http://ift.tt/1DJyDdI

How to see the legendary green flash

The green flash image at the top of this post was taken by Jim Grant, our friend on Facebook. He captured it off the coast of Ocean Beach, California. He called it a mock mirage green flash.

You can see green flashes with the eye, when sky conditions are just right, if you are looking toward a very clear and very distant horizon. That’s why those who see green flashes most often see them over a sea horizon. You also must be looking just at sunset, at the last moment before the sun disappears below the horizon. And you have to be careful not to look too soon. Wait until just the thinnest rim of the sun appears above the horizon. If you look too soon, the light of the sunset will dazzle (or damage) your eyes, and you’ll miss your green flash chance that day.

A planisphere is virtually indispensable for beginning stargazers. Order your EarthSky planisphere today.

View larger. | EarthSky Facebook friend Jim Grant caught this green flash on April 27, 2012 off the coast of San Diego.

There are many different types of green flash. Some describe a streak or ray of the color green … like a green flame shooting up from the sunrise or sunset horizon. The most common green flash, which many people describe, is a flash of the color green seen when the sun is nearly entirely below the horizon.

Green flash image by Mike Baird. Used with permission.

You need a distant horizon to see any of these phenomena, and you need a distinct edge to the horizon. So these green flashes, streaks, and rays are often seen over the ocean – but you can see them over land, too, if your horizon is far enough away. Pollution or haze on the horizon will hide this instantaneous flash of the color green.

If you’re interested in green flashes, Andrew Young’s green flash page is great. He also has a page of links to pictures of green flashes taken by people from around the globe.

Here’s another good article about the green flash by Peter Michaud.

And here’s a rather subtle green flash video here. I had to watch it several times to convince myself I saw any green.

Bottom line: The green flash is legendary, and some people have told us they thought it was a myth, like a unicorn or a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. But green flashes are very real. You need a distant and very clear horizon to see them at the last moment before the sun disappears below the horizon at sunset.

Enjoying EarthSky so far? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

Help support EarthSky! Visit the EarthSky store for to see the great selection of educational tools and team gear we have to offer.

Can you see a green flash? More tips, plus more pictures

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1Jg01Vr

The green flash image at the top of this post was taken by Jim Grant, our friend on Facebook. He captured it off the coast of Ocean Beach, California. He called it a mock mirage green flash.

You can see green flashes with the eye, when sky conditions are just right, if you are looking toward a very clear and very distant horizon. That’s why those who see green flashes most often see them over a sea horizon. You also must be looking just at sunset, at the last moment before the sun disappears below the horizon. And you have to be careful not to look too soon. Wait until just the thinnest rim of the sun appears above the horizon. If you look too soon, the light of the sunset will dazzle (or damage) your eyes, and you’ll miss your green flash chance that day.

A planisphere is virtually indispensable for beginning stargazers. Order your EarthSky planisphere today.

View larger. | EarthSky Facebook friend Jim Grant caught this green flash on April 27, 2012 off the coast of San Diego.

There are many different types of green flash. Some describe a streak or ray of the color green … like a green flame shooting up from the sunrise or sunset horizon. The most common green flash, which many people describe, is a flash of the color green seen when the sun is nearly entirely below the horizon.

Green flash image by Mike Baird. Used with permission.

You need a distant horizon to see any of these phenomena, and you need a distinct edge to the horizon. So these green flashes, streaks, and rays are often seen over the ocean – but you can see them over land, too, if your horizon is far enough away. Pollution or haze on the horizon will hide this instantaneous flash of the color green.

If you’re interested in green flashes, Andrew Young’s green flash page is great. He also has a page of links to pictures of green flashes taken by people from around the globe.

Here’s another good article about the green flash by Peter Michaud.

And here’s a rather subtle green flash video here. I had to watch it several times to convince myself I saw any green.

Bottom line: The green flash is legendary, and some people have told us they thought it was a myth, like a unicorn or a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. But green flashes are very real. You need a distant and very clear horizon to see them at the last moment before the sun disappears below the horizon at sunset.

Enjoying EarthSky so far? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

Help support EarthSky! Visit the EarthSky store for to see the great selection of educational tools and team gear we have to offer.

Can you see a green flash? More tips, plus more pictures

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1Jg01Vr

2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #18B

• Amazon: 1% of tree species store 50% of region's carbon
• California Governor orders new target for emissions cuts
• Caribbean stakes out “red lines” for Paris climate talks
• Climate change could eventually claim a sixth of the world’s species
• Climate change joins terrorism, the economy as a top diplomatic issue
• Climate change will significantly affect Australians’ health, report finds
• College students are making global warming a moral issue. Here's why that scares people.
• Cutting NASA’s earth science budget is short-sighted and a threat
• England faces major rise in record hot years due to climate change 
• Fossil fuel companies defy warnings on burning reserves
• Heartland Institute takes climate foolishness to a Biblical level
• House GOP wants to eviscerate NASA Earth Sciences in new budget
• Melting moments: a look under East Antarctica’s biggest glacier
• Overlooked evidence - global warming may proceed faster than expected
• Vatican spells out vision for zero-carbon world

Amazon: 1% of tree species store 50% of region's carbon

About 1% of all the tree species in the Amazon account for half of the carbon locked in the vast South American rainforest, a study has estimated.

Although the region is home to an estimated 16,000 tree species, researchers found that just 182 species dominated the carbon storage process.

Amazonia is vital to the Earth's carbon cycle, storing more of the element than any other terrestrial ecosystem.

The findings appear in the journal Nature Communications.

Amazon: 1% of tree species store 50% of region's carbon by Mark Kinver, BBC News, Apr 28, 2015

---

California Governor orders new target for emissions cuts

Gov. Jerry Brown issued an executive order Wednesday sharply ramping up this state’s already ambitious program aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions, saying it was critical to address “an ever-growing threat” posed by global warming to the state’s economy and well-being.

Under Mr. Brown’s order, by 2030, emission levels will have to be reduced by 40 percent compared with 1990. Under existing state law, emissions are supposed to be cut 80 percent from what they were in 1990 by 2050, and Mr. Brown said this tough new interim target was essential to helping the state make investment and regulatory decisions that would assure that goal was reached.

Mr. Brown faulted Republicans in Congress for “pooh-poohing” the threat of global warming. He said that he wanted California to set an example for the rest of the country and the world on the urgency of responding to what he described as a slow-moving crisis.

California Governor Orders New Target for Emissions Cuts by Adam Nagourney, New York Times, Apr 29, 2015

---

Caribbean stakes out “red lines” for Paris climate talks

When the international climate change talks ended in Peru last December, the 15-member Caribbean Community (CARICOM), a political and economic union comprising small, developing, climate-vulnerable islands and low-lying nations, left with “the bare minimum necessary to continue the process to address climate change”.

“The Lima Accord did decide that the Parties would continue to work on the elements in the Annex to develop a negotiating text for the new Climate Change Agreement. We wanted a stronger statement that these were the elements to be used to draft the negotiating text,” Carlos Fuller, international and regional liaison officer at the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre told IPS.

Caribbean Stakes Out “Red Lines” for Paris Climate Talks by Kenton X. Chance, International Press Service (IPS), Apr 

---

Climate change could eventually claim a sixth of the world’s species

Up to one-sixth of the species on Earth could disappear if climate change remains on its current course, according to a new analysis of more than 100 smaller studies.

“All the studies are in pretty good agreement: The more warming we have, the more species we’ll lose,” says Dov Sax, a conservation biologist at Brown University who was not involved in the work. “This is really important to know, from a policy viewpoint.”

Industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and other planet-warming greenhouse gases have boosted the global average temperature about 0.8°C (1.44°F) since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. But studies have disagreed about what impact the rise is having on the world’s species, says Mark Urban, an ecologist at the University of Connecticut, Storrs. Some have estimated that as many as 54% of species could eventually become extinct as a result of climate change, but others have suggested no significant impact.

Climate change could eventually claim a sixth of the world’s species by Sid Perkins, Science/AAAS, Apr 30, 2015

---

Climate change joins terrorism, the economy as a top diplomatic issue

For the first time, climate change has received full treatment in an important State Department planning document, joining terrorism, democracy, and the global economy among the nation’s top diplomatic priorities. It’s the clearest sign yet that the warming climate has the full attention of the Obama administration.

Earlier this week, Secretary of State John Kerry released the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, the once-every-four-years strategic planning document for America’s diplomatic corps. The QDDR is a wonky initiative begun by Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State and modeled off a similar process that the Defense Department uses. At that time, her team prioritized energy diplomacy and frequently mentioned climate change in a list of complex challenges, but this week’s document ups the ante significantly.

Climate Change Joins Terrorism, the Economy as a Top Diplomatic Issue by Eric Holthaus, Slate, Apr 30, 2015

---

Climate change will significantly affect Australians’ health, report finds

Climate change will have significant repercussions for Australians’ health as warming temperatures fuel extreme weather events, help spread disease and disrupt food and water supplies, according to a report backed by the country’s peak scientific and medical bodies.

The Climate change challenges to health report, released by the Australian Academy of Science, warns that vulnerable people, particularly the sick, elderly and poor, will “suffer disproportionately from the worst impacts of climate change.”

The report notes that the world will have warmed by “at least 2C compared with pre-industrial times” by the end of the century, leading to heatwaves, droughts, storms and floods that will “lead directly to loss of life and will have a negative effect on the mental wellbeing of communities.” 

Climate change will significantly affect Australians’ health, report finds by Oliver Milman and Melissa Davey, The Guardian, Apr 29, 2015

---

College students are making global warming a moral issue. Here's why that scares people

The Pope plans on delivering an encyclical on climate change this summer, and it has American conservatives freaking out. The Heartland Institute, a leading anti-environmental "think tank," has even dispatched a crack team of deniers to Rome to dissuade His Holiness.

Why the agita from the right? After all, similar statements of climate concern have been issued by virtually every major government, international development organization, and national science council in the world. It's not like the Pope is spilling the beans on a well-kept secret.

But as Heartland clearly recognizes, the Pope's statement carries unique significance for the simple reason that he has unquestioned moral authority for millions of people. He threatens to situate the fight against climate change as a deeply moral issue, a matter of God's work on earth. Once it is so situated, it will slowly and inexorably drag culture and politics along in its wake.

College students are making global warming a moral issue. Here's why that scares people. by David Roberts, Vox, Apr 29, 2015

---

Cutting NASA’s earth science budget is short-sighted and a threat 

When I went to bed last night, I had no intention of writing this commentary. However, I literally could not sleep contemplating the reckless cuts to NASA’s earth sciences budget being proposed by some in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Phil Plait at Slate and Capital Weather Gang recently documented the stark and primitive cuts being proposed for the NASA authorization bill.

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, one of the few people that has actually seen our home planet from the vantage point of space, issued a statement noting that proposed cuts, “gut our Earth science program and threatens to set back generations worth of progress in better understanding our changing climate, and our ability to prepare for and respond to earthquakes, droughts, and storm events…” This statement is measured and appropriate, but I am writing to amplify this statement.

Cutting NASA’s earth science budget is short-sighted and a threat by Marshall Shepherd, Capital Weather Gang, Washington Post, May 1, 2015

---

England faces major rise in record hot years due to climate change 

Record-breaking hot years in England have become at least 13 times more likely because of manmade climate change, scientists have discovered.

The new study suggests England faces a “significant and substantial increase” of years similar to 2014, which was the hottest on record worldwide and the warmest in England since records began more than three and a half centuries ago.

Dr Geert Jan van Oldenborgh from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, who co-authored the study, said climate change had become so influential on the world’s weather that its effects could be modelled at increasingly local levels.

England faces major rise in record hot years due to climate change by Karl Mathiesen, The Guardian, May 1, 2015

---

Fossil fuel companies defy warnings on burning reserves

The world’s biggest fossil fuel companies are taking a defiant stance against warnings that reserves of coal, oil and gas are already several times larger than can be burned if the world’s governments are to meet their pledge to tackle climate change.

Peabody Energy, the world’s largest private coal company, said on Monday that global warming was “an environmental crisis predicted by flawed computer models”.

Another coal giant, Glencore Xstrata, said on Tuesday that governments would fail to implement measures to cut carbon emissions. Oil and gas major ExxonMobil said new reserves in the Arctic and Canadian tar sands must be exploited, moves scientists deem incompatible with tackling global warming.

Fossil fuel companies defy warnings on burning reserves by Damien Carrington, The Guardian, Apr 29, 2015

---

Heartland Institute takes climate foolishness to a Biblical level

I just received a notice that made me laugh. The Heartland Institute, one of the groups responsible for misleading the public about climate change, sent out a notice about an upcoming Papal event. The event itself sounds great, it is a workshop on April 28th to address global warming. I have written about the bold action taken by Pope Francis; he is clearly a leader amongst the faith community on this topic which is already having large societal and human health impacts. At the upcoming events, world leaders in science, business, and religion will congregate to work toward solutions to help protect the most vulnerable. 

Of course, this is all bad news for those who are trying to sweep the problem of climate change under the rug. That brings us to the Heartland Institute. They are asking their members and readers to tell the Pope that climate change is not a crisis. In an email I received, it is stated that Heartland will be bringing “real scientists to Rome” to dissuade the Pope from taking climate change seriously.

So, who are these “real” scientists that can show us climate change either isn’t happening or isn’t serious? Well, if you’ve followed climate change research over the past few years, you will have noticed that the number of scientists who share Heartland’s view is dwindling fast. The few remaining scientists either aren’t climate scientists at all or their work has been revealed as faulty.

Heartland Institute takes climate foolishness to a Biblical level by John Abraham, Climate Consensus - the 97%, The Guardian, Apr 28, 2015

---

House GOP wants to eviscerate NASA Earth Sciences in new budget

There’s no other way to put this, so I’ll be succinct: A passel of anti-science global warming denying GOP representatives have put together a funding authorization bill for NASA that at best cuts more than $300 million from the agency’s current Earth science budget.

At worst? More than $500 million.

The actual amount of the cut depends on whether some caps enacted in 2011 are removed or not. If they are, then Earth sciences gets $1.45 billion. If not, it gets $1.2 billion. The current FY 2015 budget is $1.773 billion.

Compare that with the White House request for FY ’16 of $1.947 billion for Earth sciences. The bill will be marked up (amended and rewritten) by the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee today.

House GOP Wants to Eviscerate NASA Earth Sciences in New Budget by Phil Plait, Bad Astronomy, Slate, Apr 30, 2015

---

Melting moments: a look under East Antarctica’s biggest glacier

It’s 11 o’clock on a January evening in 2011 as our venerable old DC-3 aircraft banks over Casey Station, in the last golden rays of an Antarctic sunset. Offshore, an armada of giant icebergs sits stalled in the relative shallows along Peterson Bank, a mix of dusky pink highlights and violet shadows.

Inside the aircraft we shut down our instruments, and I strap myself back in my seat before the gentle bump and swoosh of the snowy landing – another mission under our belts.

The ICECAP (International Collaboration for Exploration of the Cryosphere through Aerogeophysical Profiling) project – a collaboration between US, British and Australian Antarctic researchers – has been mapping the East Antarctic ice sheet to look for changes. On our many flights, we have used radar, laser, geomagnetic and gravity instruments to survey an area the size of New South Wales, inland from Casey Station. So far, the flights have covered a total of 150,000 km over the frozen continent’s vast eastern expanse.

And it turns out that East Antarctica needs careful watching. The project is giving us a new look at the underside of the ice sheet in East Antarctica, and causing significant concerns for future increases in sea level. One of the project’s major recent discoveries is that the terrain under the region’s biggest and most important glacier may make it more vulnerable to melting than we thought.

Melting moments: a look under East Antarctica’s biggest glacier by Tas van Ommen, The Conversation, Apr 29, 2015

---

Overlooked evidence - global warming may proceed faster than expected

It’s known as “single study syndrome”. When a new scientific paper is published suggesting that the climate is relatively insensitive to the increased greenhouse effect, potentially modestly downgrading the associated climate change threats, that sort of paper will generally receive disproportionate media attention. Because of that media attention, people will tend to remember the results of that single paper, and neglect the many recent studies that have arrived at very different conclusions.

Overlooked evidence - global warming may proceed faster than expected by Dana Nuccitelli,Climate Consensus - the 97%, The Guardian, Apr 30, 2015

---

Vatican spells out vision for zero-carbon world

The Vatican has gathered religious leaders, scientists, politicians and businessmen under one roof to agree that acting on climate change is a "moral and religious imperative for humanity".

This was the essence of a declaration signed by the attendees of a one-day meeting hosted yesterday by the Holy See. It outlines a vision for the future of the planet, including the adoption of low-carbon energy systems, a shift of investment away from the military and towards sustainable development, and the transfer of money from the rich to the poor.

The meeting was organised by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences - academic bodies under the auspices of the Pope that seek to combine scientific and spiritual values.

Today, these institutions released their own report, designed to accompany the declaration and to support a forthcoming encyclical on climate change authored by Pope Francis.

Vatican spells out vision for zero-carbon world by Sophie Yeo, The Carbon Brief, Apr 29, 2015

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/1KBDlA6

• Amazon: 1% of tree species store 50% of region's carbon
• California Governor orders new target for emissions cuts
• Caribbean stakes out “red lines” for Paris climate talks
• Climate change could eventually claim a sixth of the world’s species
• Climate change joins terrorism, the economy as a top diplomatic issue
• Climate change will significantly affect Australians’ health, report finds
• College students are making global warming a moral issue. Here's why that scares people.
• Cutting NASA’s earth science budget is short-sighted and a threat
• England faces major rise in record hot years due to climate change 
• Fossil fuel companies defy warnings on burning reserves
• Heartland Institute takes climate foolishness to a Biblical level
• House GOP wants to eviscerate NASA Earth Sciences in new budget
• Melting moments: a look under East Antarctica’s biggest glacier
• Overlooked evidence - global warming may proceed faster than expected
• Vatican spells out vision for zero-carbon world

Amazon: 1% of tree species store 50% of region's carbon

About 1% of all the tree species in the Amazon account for half of the carbon locked in the vast South American rainforest, a study has estimated.

Although the region is home to an estimated 16,000 tree species, researchers found that just 182 species dominated the carbon storage process.

Amazonia is vital to the Earth's carbon cycle, storing more of the element than any other terrestrial ecosystem.

The findings appear in the journal Nature Communications.

Amazon: 1% of tree species store 50% of region's carbon by Mark Kinver, BBC News, Apr 28, 2015

---

California Governor orders new target for emissions cuts

Gov. Jerry Brown issued an executive order Wednesday sharply ramping up this state’s already ambitious program aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions, saying it was critical to address “an ever-growing threat” posed by global warming to the state’s economy and well-being.

Under Mr. Brown’s order, by 2030, emission levels will have to be reduced by 40 percent compared with 1990. Under existing state law, emissions are supposed to be cut 80 percent from what they were in 1990 by 2050, and Mr. Brown said this tough new interim target was essential to helping the state make investment and regulatory decisions that would assure that goal was reached.

Mr. Brown faulted Republicans in Congress for “pooh-poohing” the threat of global warming. He said that he wanted California to set an example for the rest of the country and the world on the urgency of responding to what he described as a slow-moving crisis.

California Governor Orders New Target for Emissions Cuts by Adam Nagourney, New York Times, Apr 29, 2015

---

Caribbean stakes out “red lines” for Paris climate talks

When the international climate change talks ended in Peru last December, the 15-member Caribbean Community (CARICOM), a political and economic union comprising small, developing, climate-vulnerable islands and low-lying nations, left with “the bare minimum necessary to continue the process to address climate change”.

“The Lima Accord did decide that the Parties would continue to work on the elements in the Annex to develop a negotiating text for the new Climate Change Agreement. We wanted a stronger statement that these were the elements to be used to draft the negotiating text,” Carlos Fuller, international and regional liaison officer at the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre told IPS.

Caribbean Stakes Out “Red Lines” for Paris Climate Talks by Kenton X. Chance, International Press Service (IPS), Apr 

---

Climate change could eventually claim a sixth of the world’s species

Up to one-sixth of the species on Earth could disappear if climate change remains on its current course, according to a new analysis of more than 100 smaller studies.

“All the studies are in pretty good agreement: The more warming we have, the more species we’ll lose,” says Dov Sax, a conservation biologist at Brown University who was not involved in the work. “This is really important to know, from a policy viewpoint.”

Industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and other planet-warming greenhouse gases have boosted the global average temperature about 0.8°C (1.44°F) since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. But studies have disagreed about what impact the rise is having on the world’s species, says Mark Urban, an ecologist at the University of Connecticut, Storrs. Some have estimated that as many as 54% of species could eventually become extinct as a result of climate change, but others have suggested no significant impact.

Climate change could eventually claim a sixth of the world’s species by Sid Perkins, Science/AAAS, Apr 30, 2015

---

Climate change joins terrorism, the economy as a top diplomatic issue

For the first time, climate change has received full treatment in an important State Department planning document, joining terrorism, democracy, and the global economy among the nation’s top diplomatic priorities. It’s the clearest sign yet that the warming climate has the full attention of the Obama administration.

Earlier this week, Secretary of State John Kerry released the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, the once-every-four-years strategic planning document for America’s diplomatic corps. The QDDR is a wonky initiative begun by Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State and modeled off a similar process that the Defense Department uses. At that time, her team prioritized energy diplomacy and frequently mentioned climate change in a list of complex challenges, but this week’s document ups the ante significantly.

Climate Change Joins Terrorism, the Economy as a Top Diplomatic Issue by Eric Holthaus, Slate, Apr 30, 2015

---

Climate change will significantly affect Australians’ health, report finds

Climate change will have significant repercussions for Australians’ health as warming temperatures fuel extreme weather events, help spread disease and disrupt food and water supplies, according to a report backed by the country’s peak scientific and medical bodies.

The Climate change challenges to health report, released by the Australian Academy of Science, warns that vulnerable people, particularly the sick, elderly and poor, will “suffer disproportionately from the worst impacts of climate change.”

The report notes that the world will have warmed by “at least 2C compared with pre-industrial times” by the end of the century, leading to heatwaves, droughts, storms and floods that will “lead directly to loss of life and will have a negative effect on the mental wellbeing of communities.” 

Climate change will significantly affect Australians’ health, report finds by Oliver Milman and Melissa Davey, The Guardian, Apr 29, 2015

---

College students are making global warming a moral issue. Here's why that scares people

The Pope plans on delivering an encyclical on climate change this summer, and it has American conservatives freaking out. The Heartland Institute, a leading anti-environmental "think tank," has even dispatched a crack team of deniers to Rome to dissuade His Holiness.

Why the agita from the right? After all, similar statements of climate concern have been issued by virtually every major government, international development organization, and national science council in the world. It's not like the Pope is spilling the beans on a well-kept secret.

But as Heartland clearly recognizes, the Pope's statement carries unique significance for the simple reason that he has unquestioned moral authority for millions of people. He threatens to situate the fight against climate change as a deeply moral issue, a matter of God's work on earth. Once it is so situated, it will slowly and inexorably drag culture and politics along in its wake.

College students are making global warming a moral issue. Here's why that scares people. by David Roberts, Vox, Apr 29, 2015

---

Cutting NASA’s earth science budget is short-sighted and a threat 

When I went to bed last night, I had no intention of writing this commentary. However, I literally could not sleep contemplating the reckless cuts to NASA’s earth sciences budget being proposed by some in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Phil Plait at Slate and Capital Weather Gang recently documented the stark and primitive cuts being proposed for the NASA authorization bill.

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, one of the few people that has actually seen our home planet from the vantage point of space, issued a statement noting that proposed cuts, “gut our Earth science program and threatens to set back generations worth of progress in better understanding our changing climate, and our ability to prepare for and respond to earthquakes, droughts, and storm events…” This statement is measured and appropriate, but I am writing to amplify this statement.

Cutting NASA’s earth science budget is short-sighted and a threat by Marshall Shepherd, Capital Weather Gang, Washington Post, May 1, 2015

---

England faces major rise in record hot years due to climate change 

Record-breaking hot years in England have become at least 13 times more likely because of manmade climate change, scientists have discovered.

The new study suggests England faces a “significant and substantial increase” of years similar to 2014, which was the hottest on record worldwide and the warmest in England since records began more than three and a half centuries ago.

Dr Geert Jan van Oldenborgh from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, who co-authored the study, said climate change had become so influential on the world’s weather that its effects could be modelled at increasingly local levels.

England faces major rise in record hot years due to climate change by Karl Mathiesen, The Guardian, May 1, 2015

---

Fossil fuel companies defy warnings on burning reserves

The world’s biggest fossil fuel companies are taking a defiant stance against warnings that reserves of coal, oil and gas are already several times larger than can be burned if the world’s governments are to meet their pledge to tackle climate change.

Peabody Energy, the world’s largest private coal company, said on Monday that global warming was “an environmental crisis predicted by flawed computer models”.

Another coal giant, Glencore Xstrata, said on Tuesday that governments would fail to implement measures to cut carbon emissions. Oil and gas major ExxonMobil said new reserves in the Arctic and Canadian tar sands must be exploited, moves scientists deem incompatible with tackling global warming.

Fossil fuel companies defy warnings on burning reserves by Damien Carrington, The Guardian, Apr 29, 2015

---

Heartland Institute takes climate foolishness to a Biblical level

I just received a notice that made me laugh. The Heartland Institute, one of the groups responsible for misleading the public about climate change, sent out a notice about an upcoming Papal event. The event itself sounds great, it is a workshop on April 28th to address global warming. I have written about the bold action taken by Pope Francis; he is clearly a leader amongst the faith community on this topic which is already having large societal and human health impacts. At the upcoming events, world leaders in science, business, and religion will congregate to work toward solutions to help protect the most vulnerable. 

Of course, this is all bad news for those who are trying to sweep the problem of climate change under the rug. That brings us to the Heartland Institute. They are asking their members and readers to tell the Pope that climate change is not a crisis. In an email I received, it is stated that Heartland will be bringing “real scientists to Rome” to dissuade the Pope from taking climate change seriously.

So, who are these “real” scientists that can show us climate change either isn’t happening or isn’t serious? Well, if you’ve followed climate change research over the past few years, you will have noticed that the number of scientists who share Heartland’s view is dwindling fast. The few remaining scientists either aren’t climate scientists at all or their work has been revealed as faulty.

Heartland Institute takes climate foolishness to a Biblical level by John Abraham, Climate Consensus - the 97%, The Guardian, Apr 28, 2015

---

House GOP wants to eviscerate NASA Earth Sciences in new budget

There’s no other way to put this, so I’ll be succinct: A passel of anti-science global warming denying GOP representatives have put together a funding authorization bill for NASA that at best cuts more than $300 million from the agency’s current Earth science budget.

At worst? More than $500 million.

The actual amount of the cut depends on whether some caps enacted in 2011 are removed or not. If they are, then Earth sciences gets $1.45 billion. If not, it gets $1.2 billion. The current FY 2015 budget is $1.773 billion.

Compare that with the White House request for FY ’16 of $1.947 billion for Earth sciences. The bill will be marked up (amended and rewritten) by the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee today.

House GOP Wants to Eviscerate NASA Earth Sciences in New Budget by Phil Plait, Bad Astronomy, Slate, Apr 30, 2015

---

Melting moments: a look under East Antarctica’s biggest glacier

It’s 11 o’clock on a January evening in 2011 as our venerable old DC-3 aircraft banks over Casey Station, in the last golden rays of an Antarctic sunset. Offshore, an armada of giant icebergs sits stalled in the relative shallows along Peterson Bank, a mix of dusky pink highlights and violet shadows.

Inside the aircraft we shut down our instruments, and I strap myself back in my seat before the gentle bump and swoosh of the snowy landing – another mission under our belts.

The ICECAP (International Collaboration for Exploration of the Cryosphere through Aerogeophysical Profiling) project – a collaboration between US, British and Australian Antarctic researchers – has been mapping the East Antarctic ice sheet to look for changes. On our many flights, we have used radar, laser, geomagnetic and gravity instruments to survey an area the size of New South Wales, inland from Casey Station. So far, the flights have covered a total of 150,000 km over the frozen continent’s vast eastern expanse.

And it turns out that East Antarctica needs careful watching. The project is giving us a new look at the underside of the ice sheet in East Antarctica, and causing significant concerns for future increases in sea level. One of the project’s major recent discoveries is that the terrain under the region’s biggest and most important glacier may make it more vulnerable to melting than we thought.

Melting moments: a look under East Antarctica’s biggest glacier by Tas van Ommen, The Conversation, Apr 29, 2015

---

Overlooked evidence - global warming may proceed faster than expected

It’s known as “single study syndrome”. When a new scientific paper is published suggesting that the climate is relatively insensitive to the increased greenhouse effect, potentially modestly downgrading the associated climate change threats, that sort of paper will generally receive disproportionate media attention. Because of that media attention, people will tend to remember the results of that single paper, and neglect the many recent studies that have arrived at very different conclusions.

Overlooked evidence - global warming may proceed faster than expected by Dana Nuccitelli,Climate Consensus - the 97%, The Guardian, Apr 30, 2015

---

Vatican spells out vision for zero-carbon world

The Vatican has gathered religious leaders, scientists, politicians and businessmen under one roof to agree that acting on climate change is a "moral and religious imperative for humanity".

This was the essence of a declaration signed by the attendees of a one-day meeting hosted yesterday by the Holy See. It outlines a vision for the future of the planet, including the adoption of low-carbon energy systems, a shift of investment away from the military and towards sustainable development, and the transfer of money from the rich to the poor.

The meeting was organised by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences - academic bodies under the auspices of the Pope that seek to combine scientific and spiritual values.

Today, these institutions released their own report, designed to accompany the declaration and to support a forthcoming encyclical on climate change authored by Pope Francis.

Vatican spells out vision for zero-carbon world by Sophie Yeo, The Carbon Brief, Apr 29, 2015

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/1KBDlA6

Give me five minutes and I’ll give you Saturn in 2015

The best time to see the planet Saturn in 2015 is almost here! In late May 2015, the ringed planet is at its brightest and out all night long. Saturn is the sixth planet outward from the sun and farthest world that’s easily visible to the unaided eye. On May 23, we pass between Saturn and the sun. You need a telescope to see the planet’s wide, encircling rings. Saturn is also fun to watch with the eye alone. It shines with a steady light and golden color. Follow the links below to learn more about Saturn in 2015.

When can I see Saturn in 2015?

To find Saturn in 2015, look for the star Antares and the Crown of the Scorpion.

Saturn is closest, brightest, opposite the sun on May 23.

Where will Saturn be in the second half of 2015?

Saturn basics.

Here’s a view of Saturn by the Cassini spacecraft. Cassini acquired the data – and Val Klavans processed it into this composite image – in May, 2014. More details on Flickr

View larger. | Golden Saturn as seen by the Voyager 2 spacecraft in 1980

When can I see Saturn in 2015? Saturn has been visible throughout 2015, but it’s been inconspicuously placed in the late-night or early-morning sky. In late May, Saturn begins rising at sunset.

May and June present especially good months in 2015 to view Saturn. The planet will be out all night long, or nearly so. The reason is that we’ll pass between Saturn and the sun on May 23. At that time, Saturn will be opposite the sun as seen from Earth, to rise in the east at sunset, climb highest up at midnight and to set in the west at sunrise.

Saturn lodges fairly close to a bright zodiacal star throughout 2015, Antares in the constellation Scorpius. Look for three closely-knit, modestly-bright stars to the west (right) of Antares to view the very recognizable Crown of the Scorpion. The nearby golden light in 2015 will be the planet Saturn.

Last year, in 2014, Saturn was farther west upon the Zodiac, residing in front of the constellation Libra the Scales, as shown on Annie Lewis’ photo below, taken in March 2014. Note the star Antares and the Crown of the Scorpion closer to the horizon.

Last year (2014), Saturn was in front of Libra near Libra’s two brightest stars, Zubenelgenubi and Zubeneschamali. Even-brighter Antares was to one side of Saturn. In 2015, Saturn is at the top of Scorpius, not far from Antares. Why the difference? Earth takes a year to orbit the sun. Saturn takes 30 years. So Saturn moves entirely around our sky, with respect to the stars, once every 30 years. Photo by EarthSky Facebook friend Annie Lewis in Madrid, Spain. Thank you, Annie!

Look for the bright waning gibbous moon near the planet Saturn on May 4 and May 5. The green line depicts the ecliptic – the sun’s annual path in front of the backdrop stars.

In May 2015, you may have to wait until mid-to-late evening to see the ruddy star Antares and the Crown of the Scorpion below Saturn. By the time June arrives, Saturn and Antares – and the intervening Scorpion’s Crown – will be seen above the horizon at nightfall.

View larger. | To verify that you’re looking at Saturn, find Antares and the compact line of three stars to the west of Antares.

To find Saturn in 2015, look for the star Antares and the Crown of the Scorpion. Practiced sky watchers will rely upon the bright ruddy star Antares and the Crown of the Scorpion to verify that they are indeed looking at the planet Saturn throughout 2015. Although Saturn and Antares shine relatively close together on the sky’s dome this year, you can distinguish Saturn from Antares by color. Saturn exhibits a golden hue whreas Antares glowers red. If you have difficulty discerning color, try your luck with binoculars.

Saturn rises first, followed by the Crown of the Scorpion and then Antares. So, in May, you may have to wait until early-to-mid evening to finally see Antares climbing above the southeast horizon. By the time the month of June is upon us, Saturn and Antares will both be above the horizon at nightfall. From then on, you’ll see Saturn and Antares adorning the evening sky until October 2015.

So how can you recognize Saturn in May? If you have no idea of where to look, use the moon to help you locate Saturn and Antares on May 4, 5 and 6. Although the moon will move onward in its monthly journey through the constellations of the Zodiac, Saturn and Antares will return to the same place in the sky about 4 minutes earlier daily, one-half hour earlier weekly or two hours earlier monthly. Once the moon has left the evening sky, make friends with the Crown of the Scorpion. This group of stars offers a sure-fire way to verify that the nearby bright golden light is the ringed planet Saturn!

If you’re handy with a planisphere, you can estimate Antares’ position in your sky – then use this star to locate Saturn.

Scott MacNeill captured this photo of Saturn the last time it was at opposition, in early May 2014. He wrote: “… at Frosty Drew Observatory on a super clear night. This photograph showcases the Cassini Division and the elusive Encke Gap.” Thank you, Scott!

At opposition on May 10, 2014, Saturn will be opposite the sun from Earth, rising in the east when the sun sets in the west. Image via theakumalian.com

Saturn is closest, brightest, opposite the sun on May 23. On May 23, 2015, we will go between the sun and Saturn. Astronomers call this an opposition of Saturn, because the planet will appear opposite the sun in our sky, rising in the east as the sun sets in the west.

May 23 – the opposition date – features the ringed planet at its closest to Earth and brightest in our sky. Saturn is the faintest of the bright planets. It’s still pretty bright, but, normally, you wouldn’t pick it out from among the stars. But around May of 2015, you can view Saturn fairly easily, because Saturn appears as bright as the brightest stars. Saturn shines a touch brighter than Antares, the brightest star in the constellation Scorpius.

Because we will pass Saturn – the sixth planet outward from the sun – from an inside track around the sun, the ringed planet will look as if it’s going backward (retrograde) in front of the fixed stars of the Zodiac for several months. In 2015, Saturn retrogrades (moves away from Antares and the Crown of the Scorpion) from March 14 until August 2.

By the way, Saturn’s yearly opposition happens about two weeks later with each passing year. The 2009 opposition was on March 8. The 2010 opposition was on March 21. The 2011 opposition was on April 3. The 2012 opposition was April 15. The 2013 opposition was April 28. The 2014 opposition happened on May 10. The 2015 opposition will occur on May 23, an the 2016 opposition on June 3. So you see that Saturn – like most objects in the heavens – is really very orderly in its comings and goings in our sky. Once you learn to identify it, you can recognize it from year to year.

Where will Saturn be in the second half of 2015? Saturn is nearly always somewhere in our sky, for most of every year. In the second half 2015, as Earth moves away from Saturn in its orbit, we’ll see Saturn shift its location in our evening sky. After Saturn’s opposition in May 2015, Saturn will appear farther to the west as darkness falls each month thereafter. Finally, in late October or November of 2014, Saturn will disappear in the western twilight after sunset.

One last thing, for you telescope users: from February 11, 1996, to September 4, 2009, the south side of Saturn’s rings was facing in Earth’s direction. Since then, we’ve been looking at the north side of the rings. In May and June 2015, the rings are inclined at more than 24^o from edge-on. The inclination will shrink to a minimum of 24^o in August and will increase to a maximum of 26^o by the end of the year.

Saturn eclipsing the sun, as seen by Cassini spacecraft in 2006. More about this image. Credit: CICLOPS, JPL, ESA, NASA

Saturn basics. Earth travels around the sun once a year, while Saturn takes about 29-and-a-half years to orbit the sun once. Earth’s orbit is smaller, and we move faster than this outer planet. So once a year, we pass between Saturn and the sun and gain another lap on the planet.

You might realize from what I just said that Saturn is relatively slow-moving in orbit and, therefore, slow to change its position against the background stars. That’s why the early stargazers called it “the oldest of the old sheep.”

Like all planets, Saturn is lovely to gaze upon. Its golden color is fascinatingly reminiscent of wonderful spacecraft photos of Saturn. It’s a real place, after all, not just a light in the sky. Plus, Saturn’s brightness waxes and wanes in a subtle way throughout every year, making it fun to watch.

Can you see the rings of Saturn if you look with the eye alone? No, you need a small telescope to see the rings. But, to the unaided eye, Saturn will appear as a bright golden “star” … very beautiful. And unlike the twinkling stars, Saturn will shine with a steady light. That might help you identify it.

Bottom line: The best time for viewing the planet Saturn in 2015 comes in May and June. The ringed planet will be at its brightest and in the sky all night, or nearly so. Why? Because we’ll pass between Saturn and the sun on May 23. Saturn can be found near the Crown of the Scorpion and the star Antares. Enjoy!

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/Ra0DGS

The best time to see the planet Saturn in 2015 is almost here! In late May 2015, the ringed planet is at its brightest and out all night long. Saturn is the sixth planet outward from the sun and farthest world that’s easily visible to the unaided eye. On May 23, we pass between Saturn and the sun. You need a telescope to see the planet’s wide, encircling rings. Saturn is also fun to watch with the eye alone. It shines with a steady light and golden color. Follow the links below to learn more about Saturn in 2015.

When can I see Saturn in 2015?

To find Saturn in 2015, look for the star Antares and the Crown of the Scorpion.

Saturn is closest, brightest, opposite the sun on May 23.

Where will Saturn be in the second half of 2015?

Saturn basics.

Here’s a view of Saturn by the Cassini spacecraft. Cassini acquired the data – and Val Klavans processed it into this composite image – in May, 2014. More details on Flickr

View larger. | Golden Saturn as seen by the Voyager 2 spacecraft in 1980

When can I see Saturn in 2015? Saturn has been visible throughout 2015, but it’s been inconspicuously placed in the late-night or early-morning sky. In late May, Saturn begins rising at sunset.

May and June present especially good months in 2015 to view Saturn. The planet will be out all night long, or nearly so. The reason is that we’ll pass between Saturn and the sun on May 23. At that time, Saturn will be opposite the sun as seen from Earth, to rise in the east at sunset, climb highest up at midnight and to set in the west at sunrise.

Saturn lodges fairly close to a bright zodiacal star throughout 2015, Antares in the constellation Scorpius. Look for three closely-knit, modestly-bright stars to the west (right) of Antares to view the very recognizable Crown of the Scorpion. The nearby golden light in 2015 will be the planet Saturn.

Last year, in 2014, Saturn was farther west upon the Zodiac, residing in front of the constellation Libra the Scales, as shown on Annie Lewis’ photo below, taken in March 2014. Note the star Antares and the Crown of the Scorpion closer to the horizon.

Last year (2014), Saturn was in front of Libra near Libra’s two brightest stars, Zubenelgenubi and Zubeneschamali. Even-brighter Antares was to one side of Saturn. In 2015, Saturn is at the top of Scorpius, not far from Antares. Why the difference? Earth takes a year to orbit the sun. Saturn takes 30 years. So Saturn moves entirely around our sky, with respect to the stars, once every 30 years. Photo by EarthSky Facebook friend Annie Lewis in Madrid, Spain. Thank you, Annie!

Look for the bright waning gibbous moon near the planet Saturn on May 4 and May 5. The green line depicts the ecliptic – the sun’s annual path in front of the backdrop stars.

In May 2015, you may have to wait until mid-to-late evening to see the ruddy star Antares and the Crown of the Scorpion below Saturn. By the time June arrives, Saturn and Antares – and the intervening Scorpion’s Crown – will be seen above the horizon at nightfall.

View larger. | To verify that you’re looking at Saturn, find Antares and the compact line of three stars to the west of Antares.

To find Saturn in 2015, look for the star Antares and the Crown of the Scorpion. Practiced sky watchers will rely upon the bright ruddy star Antares and the Crown of the Scorpion to verify that they are indeed looking at the planet Saturn throughout 2015. Although Saturn and Antares shine relatively close together on the sky’s dome this year, you can distinguish Saturn from Antares by color. Saturn exhibits a golden hue whreas Antares glowers red. If you have difficulty discerning color, try your luck with binoculars.

Saturn rises first, followed by the Crown of the Scorpion and then Antares. So, in May, you may have to wait until early-to-mid evening to finally see Antares climbing above the southeast horizon. By the time the month of June is upon us, Saturn and Antares will both be above the horizon at nightfall. From then on, you’ll see Saturn and Antares adorning the evening sky until October 2015.

So how can you recognize Saturn in May? If you have no idea of where to look, use the moon to help you locate Saturn and Antares on May 4, 5 and 6. Although the moon will move onward in its monthly journey through the constellations of the Zodiac, Saturn and Antares will return to the same place in the sky about 4 minutes earlier daily, one-half hour earlier weekly or two hours earlier monthly. Once the moon has left the evening sky, make friends with the Crown of the Scorpion. This group of stars offers a sure-fire way to verify that the nearby bright golden light is the ringed planet Saturn!

If you’re handy with a planisphere, you can estimate Antares’ position in your sky – then use this star to locate Saturn.

Scott MacNeill captured this photo of Saturn the last time it was at opposition, in early May 2014. He wrote: “… at Frosty Drew Observatory on a super clear night. This photograph showcases the Cassini Division and the elusive Encke Gap.” Thank you, Scott!

At opposition on May 10, 2014, Saturn will be opposite the sun from Earth, rising in the east when the sun sets in the west. Image via theakumalian.com

Saturn is closest, brightest, opposite the sun on May 23. On May 23, 2015, we will go between the sun and Saturn. Astronomers call this an opposition of Saturn, because the planet will appear opposite the sun in our sky, rising in the east as the sun sets in the west.

May 23 – the opposition date – features the ringed planet at its closest to Earth and brightest in our sky. Saturn is the faintest of the bright planets. It’s still pretty bright, but, normally, you wouldn’t pick it out from among the stars. But around May of 2015, you can view Saturn fairly easily, because Saturn appears as bright as the brightest stars. Saturn shines a touch brighter than Antares, the brightest star in the constellation Scorpius.

Because we will pass Saturn – the sixth planet outward from the sun – from an inside track around the sun, the ringed planet will look as if it’s going backward (retrograde) in front of the fixed stars of the Zodiac for several months. In 2015, Saturn retrogrades (moves away from Antares and the Crown of the Scorpion) from March 14 until August 2.

By the way, Saturn’s yearly opposition happens about two weeks later with each passing year. The 2009 opposition was on March 8. The 2010 opposition was on March 21. The 2011 opposition was on April 3. The 2012 opposition was April 15. The 2013 opposition was April 28. The 2014 opposition happened on May 10. The 2015 opposition will occur on May 23, an the 2016 opposition on June 3. So you see that Saturn – like most objects in the heavens – is really very orderly in its comings and goings in our sky. Once you learn to identify it, you can recognize it from year to year.

Where will Saturn be in the second half of 2015? Saturn is nearly always somewhere in our sky, for most of every year. In the second half 2015, as Earth moves away from Saturn in its orbit, we’ll see Saturn shift its location in our evening sky. After Saturn’s opposition in May 2015, Saturn will appear farther to the west as darkness falls each month thereafter. Finally, in late October or November of 2014, Saturn will disappear in the western twilight after sunset.

One last thing, for you telescope users: from February 11, 1996, to September 4, 2009, the south side of Saturn’s rings was facing in Earth’s direction. Since then, we’ve been looking at the north side of the rings. In May and June 2015, the rings are inclined at more than 24^o from edge-on. The inclination will shrink to a minimum of 24^o in August and will increase to a maximum of 26^o by the end of the year.

Saturn eclipsing the sun, as seen by Cassini spacecraft in 2006. More about this image. Credit: CICLOPS, JPL, ESA, NASA

Saturn basics. Earth travels around the sun once a year, while Saturn takes about 29-and-a-half years to orbit the sun once. Earth’s orbit is smaller, and we move faster than this outer planet. So once a year, we pass between Saturn and the sun and gain another lap on the planet.

You might realize from what I just said that Saturn is relatively slow-moving in orbit and, therefore, slow to change its position against the background stars. That’s why the early stargazers called it “the oldest of the old sheep.”

Like all planets, Saturn is lovely to gaze upon. Its golden color is fascinatingly reminiscent of wonderful spacecraft photos of Saturn. It’s a real place, after all, not just a light in the sky. Plus, Saturn’s brightness waxes and wanes in a subtle way throughout every year, making it fun to watch.

Can you see the rings of Saturn if you look with the eye alone? No, you need a small telescope to see the rings. But, to the unaided eye, Saturn will appear as a bright golden “star” … very beautiful. And unlike the twinkling stars, Saturn will shine with a steady light. That might help you identify it.

Bottom line: The best time for viewing the planet Saturn in 2015 comes in May and June. The ringed planet will be at its brightest and in the sky all night, or nearly so. Why? Because we’ll pass between Saturn and the sun on May 23. Saturn can be found near the Crown of the Scorpion and the star Antares. Enjoy!

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/Ra0DGS